House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been under a firestorm of criticism from her own party for her handing of the Democratic controlled Congress. Most democrats complain that she hasn't ended the war and far-left democrats want her to impeach the President and Vice President. I'm not here to defend her every move, but Nancy Pelosi has done a lot to help bring this war to an end.
Congress tried to pass measures that would force the president to begin withdrawing troops in the future, however the were all vetoed. The Congress would have to break the 2/3 majority to override Bush's veto, and at this time that is not possible. But that is not Pelosi's fault, or for that matter any democrat's fault. It is the Republicans who refuse to think of the troops but instead think of their right-wing base and their loyalty to the President. If it wasn't for the Democratic Congress and Nancy Pelosi, there would be no talk of bringing our troops home. There would be no pressure on the President. Nancy Pelosi has forced the President to think about this war, something I'm not sure he had ever done before. She has opened up talks for withdrawal and whether the Pentagon likes to admit it or not, I'd be willing to be she has forced the Pentagon to at least bring up how troops would be re-deployed. If it wasn't for the democrats, there would be zero talk of ending this war. There would be no September Petraeus report. And on the matter of impeachment: It would be pointless for the House to begin impeachment when it has no chance of getting through the Senate. There is no point of wasting time on impeachment when it is bound to fail and there are more important issues to address. So I say to those critics of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress, blame the Republicans for they are the ones preventing what you want, not Nancy Pelosi and not the Democrats. Its a sad truth, but many are beginning to realize it: we are not leaving Iraq until we get a democrat in the White House, who is committed to the safe withdrawal of American forces.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
A chance to break out: The Iowa Straw Poll
Well today in Ames, Iowa is the Ames Straw Poll. In the past, the Straw Poll has been able to give us a good indication of whom will win the Iowa Caucus. It also is the chance for one of the lower-tier candidates to break through the glass ceiling to become a front-runner. One can argue the validity of winning the straw poll. In all senses of the word, it is nothing but a money race. The candidate with the most money can essentially "buy" votes. This is one reason why Mitt Romney is expected to cleanly and decisively win the Straw Poll.
Now one of the reasons why someone could break out is due to the fact that three of the front-runners have decided not to compete. Those three would be Mayor Guiliani, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare his candidacy. One has to question their wisdom not to compete. Romney has been winning in Iowa Caucus polls with on average 10-15 percentage points ahead of Guiliani and McCain. Both may want to preserve the candidacy, for if they lost to Romney, they might have lost some national support. It would not do well for either Guiliani or McCain to be seen finishing in a distant second of third place. I still believe, however, that they should have competed. It has to feel like the two are shunning the Iowa voters. And who knows this could have been a chance for Guiliani to poll ahead of Romney. If your in it to win it, you should be in all the formalities that go along with running for president, and for the Republicans, the Ames Straw Poll is certainly one of those formalities.
With Romney expected to win first place, who will come in second, and how far behind first place will he be? Both Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Brownback are looking to capture second place. Brownback has been running ads in Iowa, criticizing Romney on his lack of leadership when it comes to abortion. Huckabee has been polling well in Iowa, most recently tied with John McCain. If either one of these men can score close to Romney's numbers, they could break out into the front-tier.
Ron Paul is my pick for the surprise candidate. He will either do extremely well, or extremely poorly, I just don't know which yet, although I hope he finishes strong. He has to be the favorite among anti-war republicans and has received massive online support. If that online support shows up at the Straw poll, expect Paul to do well, if they don't he will likely finish at the bottom of the pack.
As for Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo, both have gained support in Iowa. Expect them to finish somewhere in the middle. Duncan Hunter has not been doing well in Iowa, so expect him to finish second to last place. Now I'm not psychic, but I can and will tell you who will come in dead last. John Cox. And he'll finish last because most people have never heard of him. He hasn't even taken part in any of the debates.
With the Straw Poll today, it should be interesting to see who will break through, if anybody. I would not surprise me in the least if we see one or two of the "losers" drop out of the race after today. Some, in fact, have probably been planning to drop out, but will use the Straw Poll as an excuse. I plan on doing a follow-up blog after the results are announced.
Now one of the reasons why someone could break out is due to the fact that three of the front-runners have decided not to compete. Those three would be Mayor Guiliani, Sen. McCain, and Sen. Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare his candidacy. One has to question their wisdom not to compete. Romney has been winning in Iowa Caucus polls with on average 10-15 percentage points ahead of Guiliani and McCain. Both may want to preserve the candidacy, for if they lost to Romney, they might have lost some national support. It would not do well for either Guiliani or McCain to be seen finishing in a distant second of third place. I still believe, however, that they should have competed. It has to feel like the two are shunning the Iowa voters. And who knows this could have been a chance for Guiliani to poll ahead of Romney. If your in it to win it, you should be in all the formalities that go along with running for president, and for the Republicans, the Ames Straw Poll is certainly one of those formalities.
With Romney expected to win first place, who will come in second, and how far behind first place will he be? Both Gov. Huckabee and Sen. Brownback are looking to capture second place. Brownback has been running ads in Iowa, criticizing Romney on his lack of leadership when it comes to abortion. Huckabee has been polling well in Iowa, most recently tied with John McCain. If either one of these men can score close to Romney's numbers, they could break out into the front-tier.
Ron Paul is my pick for the surprise candidate. He will either do extremely well, or extremely poorly, I just don't know which yet, although I hope he finishes strong. He has to be the favorite among anti-war republicans and has received massive online support. If that online support shows up at the Straw poll, expect Paul to do well, if they don't he will likely finish at the bottom of the pack.
As for Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo, both have gained support in Iowa. Expect them to finish somewhere in the middle. Duncan Hunter has not been doing well in Iowa, so expect him to finish second to last place. Now I'm not psychic, but I can and will tell you who will come in dead last. John Cox. And he'll finish last because most people have never heard of him. He hasn't even taken part in any of the debates.
With the Straw Poll today, it should be interesting to see who will break through, if anybody. I would not surprise me in the least if we see one or two of the "losers" drop out of the race after today. Some, in fact, have probably been planning to drop out, but will use the Straw Poll as an excuse. I plan on doing a follow-up blog after the results are announced.
Friday, August 10, 2007
America's Mayor with yet another self-serving statement:
When Rudy was asked in Ohio yesterday about the air quality at ground zero and him not properly preparing or warning of such a thing, "America's Mayor" had this to say,
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
What a self-serving statement to make. When I read this I immediately thought of Romney comparing his sons who are campaigning for him to those brave men and women serving their country in Iraq. Is this the best the GOP can do? They have to make themselves look like heros and reduce the true heroes to being equal to political campaigners and a Mayor that used 9/11 to propel his own political future and fortune. Its really sad and again I say that if you want to get the true story listen to the people who were there. Listen to the firefighters who were at Ground Zero. Listen to the hundreds who today have serious health problems that doctors say are directly related to the air quality at Ground Zero.
"I was at Ground Zero...I was exposed to the same stuff... so I'm one of them"
What a self-serving statement to make. When I read this I immediately thought of Romney comparing his sons who are campaigning for him to those brave men and women serving their country in Iraq. Is this the best the GOP can do? They have to make themselves look like heros and reduce the true heroes to being equal to political campaigners and a Mayor that used 9/11 to propel his own political future and fortune. Its really sad and again I say that if you want to get the true story listen to the people who were there. Listen to the firefighters who were at Ground Zero. Listen to the hundreds who today have serious health problems that doctors say are directly related to the air quality at Ground Zero.
Tom Tancredo: the craziest conservative yet?
We all know that there have been many far-right crazy conservatives in the past decades, but as Rep. Tom Tancredo continues to come to fame in the 2008 Election, and his views get revealed, he could prove to be the wackiest yet.
First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.
Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.
Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.
First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.
Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.
Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.
Mitt Romney's idea of serving your country:
At a press gathering Mitt Romney was asked if his five sons were serving in the military. In response Romney said, "The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
Okay, well in a way I think Mitt is absolutely correct. We do have a volunteer Army and if people, much like myself, would rather have a civilian career, I find no problem with that. But this is where Mitt completely lost his mind:
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
So Mitt Romney believes that driving around Iowa raising money for him is serving your country? Its certainly not equal to the sacrifice our brave men and women make in Iraq. Maybe thats why the Republicans don't mind sending thousands of troops to fight an endless, needless war, because they believe that serving your country in the military is just as easy as driving around in a nice, air-conditioned SUV in Iowa and stopping at fund-raisers. It brings up the question: if you support this War continuing and you support the surge, maybe you should join the war. Or maybe those that want to continue sending men and women to Iraq, should just go spend one, just one, day on the streets of Baghdad. Maybe then they would stop thinking of their un-yielding loyalty to the republican base, and start thinking of those who are actually fighting this war.
Okay, well in a way I think Mitt is absolutely correct. We do have a volunteer Army and if people, much like myself, would rather have a civilian career, I find no problem with that. But this is where Mitt completely lost his mind:
"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
So Mitt Romney believes that driving around Iowa raising money for him is serving your country? Its certainly not equal to the sacrifice our brave men and women make in Iraq. Maybe thats why the Republicans don't mind sending thousands of troops to fight an endless, needless war, because they believe that serving your country in the military is just as easy as driving around in a nice, air-conditioned SUV in Iowa and stopping at fund-raisers. It brings up the question: if you support this War continuing and you support the surge, maybe you should join the war. Or maybe those that want to continue sending men and women to Iraq, should just go spend one, just one, day on the streets of Baghdad. Maybe then they would stop thinking of their un-yielding loyalty to the republican base, and start thinking of those who are actually fighting this war.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New....Hampshire?
Well with the 2008 Presidential Campaign starting earlier than ever, it appears the nomination process will too start earlier than in previous years. On August 9, it was announced that South Carolina had moved its republican primary up to January 19. This was in response to South Carolina wanting to be the first Southern state to hold a primary after Florida moved its primary up to January 29, ahead of South Carolina. Now seeing as South Carolina is currently scheduled to be the first primary(ahead of New Hampshire), New Hampshire is expected to move their primary up. New Hampshire law says that the state's primary must precede any similar contest by at least 7 days. That would put New Hampshire's date at January 12 or sooner. Well the only problem with that is that the Iowa caucus is scheduled to take place on January 14. Iowa by law is required to be the first state to participate in the nomination process, traditionally occurring 8 days before New Hampshire. That could push Iowa back to January 4 or sooner. With January 4 being so close to the New Year's Holiday, some are proposing to push it back to before Christmas or in between Christmas and New Year.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the sooner the primaries happen and the closer together they occur, the less chance someone has to bounce back after a defeat. On the other hand, I feel that with this campaign starting so early and with so many people paying attention, why not just get it done and over with.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand the sooner the primaries happen and the closer together they occur, the less chance someone has to bounce back after a defeat. On the other hand, I feel that with this campaign starting so early and with so many people paying attention, why not just get it done and over with.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The myth that is "America's Mayor"
Most of the presidential candidates, democrat or republican, are running because they have something to show for their hard work and would like to work even harder by serving the American people as president. Regardless of political views, that is admirable. However there's one man who is running on a lie. That man is the republican frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani and the sad part is, most people trust and like this guy.
Rudy is basing his entire campaign on one event: 9/11. He is using what he did on 9/11 as his reason to be president. But I ask, what did Rudy do that was so great? He appeared visibly upset on TV, ok, big deal, everyone was upset. That was it. Rudy became the face of 9/11 because he was on TV so much, its that simple. The question has to be asked though--what did he do before 9/11 and what did he do beginning on 9/12?
Before 9/11, his only claim to fame was reducing crime. Yet he alone didn't magically reduce crime. Crime had been steadily decreasing before he came into office. What about after 9/11? Well I prefer to listen to the people who were there instead of drawing my own conclusion. The NYPD, FDNY, and WTC victims all say that Guiliani used this tragedy for political gain. One story particularly upsets me. Rudy called off the search for the remains and possible survivors in the rubble as soon as he found gold and silver from the WTC vaults. He has harmed the health of thousands of brave rescue workers by downplaying the negative health effects of the air quality near Ground Zero. Rudy could have saved many lives of firefighters as well, if he had just done what he knew needed to be done years before---upgrade the FDNY radios. And how about Rudy supposedly knowing oh so much about Iraq and is going to do the right thing there. Well, that could be more believable if he had attended just some of the Iraq Study Group meetings instead of making speeches for his profit. And speaking of profit, if you still don't believe Rudy uses 9/11 for political gain: Before 9/11 he was worth $2 million. Now after giving speeches about 9/11, he is estimated to be worth 30 times that amount. And what does he do with that money??? Yo guessed it, run for president and further promote himself.
Rudy is basing his entire campaign on one event: 9/11. He is using what he did on 9/11 as his reason to be president. But I ask, what did Rudy do that was so great? He appeared visibly upset on TV, ok, big deal, everyone was upset. That was it. Rudy became the face of 9/11 because he was on TV so much, its that simple. The question has to be asked though--what did he do before 9/11 and what did he do beginning on 9/12?
Before 9/11, his only claim to fame was reducing crime. Yet he alone didn't magically reduce crime. Crime had been steadily decreasing before he came into office. What about after 9/11? Well I prefer to listen to the people who were there instead of drawing my own conclusion. The NYPD, FDNY, and WTC victims all say that Guiliani used this tragedy for political gain. One story particularly upsets me. Rudy called off the search for the remains and possible survivors in the rubble as soon as he found gold and silver from the WTC vaults. He has harmed the health of thousands of brave rescue workers by downplaying the negative health effects of the air quality near Ground Zero. Rudy could have saved many lives of firefighters as well, if he had just done what he knew needed to be done years before---upgrade the FDNY radios. And how about Rudy supposedly knowing oh so much about Iraq and is going to do the right thing there. Well, that could be more believable if he had attended just some of the Iraq Study Group meetings instead of making speeches for his profit. And speaking of profit, if you still don't believe Rudy uses 9/11 for political gain: Before 9/11 he was worth $2 million. Now after giving speeches about 9/11, he is estimated to be worth 30 times that amount. And what does he do with that money??? Yo guessed it, run for president and further promote himself.
The battle for prime time: a Review of cable opinions shows
The top 3 cable news channels all have their pluses and their downs. Then there is Fox News, or as Keith Olberman and myself like to say, Faux Noise. Here is my reviews of their prime time opinion shows and the network overall.
-CNN: CNN itself doesn't really have an "opinion" show, but rather shows that have guests who talk their opinion. Their best program has to be the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Its features quick segments on the top news stories of the day while also featuring segments where political experts such as Carville, Huffington, Crowley, and more give their views on the hottest political news. Lou Dobbs is a terribly boring host. To be honest I could never watch his show for more than 5 minutes. Speaking of boring, Larry King needs to retire. His show brings nothing to CNN. While his interviews used to be sharp and crisp, he rarely follows up on anything his guests say and to top it all off, he rarely remembers their name. Then is Anderson Cooper. While an okay host, again he just doesn't add any spice to the mix. His monotone voice and needless stories just aren't what today's audience needs. CNN is like the CBS evening news, obviously catering to the older, traditional crowd.
-Headline Prime: Well there are really only two opinion shows on Headline Prime. Glen Beck is a bumbling right-wing idiot who sucks up to the base of his party like no one else's business. I'm surprised he hasn't been offered a contract by Faux Noise. His fear tactics are right in line with those of the GOP, in fact, a few months ago he and his guests talked about this current Iraq/Iran conflict causing the end of the world if we aren't careful. Than there's Nancy "Good Night Friend" Grace. What can I say about her? Comedy, pure comedy. Good for a laugh. Especially her frequent guest Susan "I rhyme everything I say" Moss. I would assume these two shows appeal to crazies.
-Speaking of crazy, we have Faux Noise. To be honest its kind of hard for me to review them based on opinions, because there is no opinion with them. Its "I'm right, you're wrong". Its right-wing bias taken to the extreme. And the kind of Faux Noise...the "Worst Person in the World" himself, Bill O. I really don't know how people watch this and make this the #1 "news" channel.
-Then there is the fastest growing news channel, MSNBC, my personal favorite. It has opinion shows, yet has diverse opinions. Tucker Carlson provides the conservative view. Chris Matthews provides the moderate view, and Keith Olberman gives his liberal opinions. Its a good mix and not to mention there is even further diversified opinions within the shows. Tucker usually features one republican and one democrat on the panel. Hardball with Chris Matthews has the daily Hardball Debate between a democrat and republican, similar to the crossfire days, and Countdown with Keith Olberman usually has all moderate guests, some leaning right, others leaning left. And then we have Dan Abrams, the male Nancy Grace. Easily MSNBC's worst show, they should give Allison Stewart or David Shuster their own show in that slot.
So the verdict:
1) MSNBC for its diverse opinions and sharp, energetic, and passionate commentators.
2) CNN by default. Not as bad as the following two, and if you like more calm, traditional shows, then CNN is for you.
3) Headline Prime's Glen Beck is enough to make this network go sour quickly, add in Nancy Grace and you have a network
thats would finish last on this countdown if I didn't have to rank Faux Noise.
4) Faux Noise, the reason should be clear.
-CNN: CNN itself doesn't really have an "opinion" show, but rather shows that have guests who talk their opinion. Their best program has to be the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Its features quick segments on the top news stories of the day while also featuring segments where political experts such as Carville, Huffington, Crowley, and more give their views on the hottest political news. Lou Dobbs is a terribly boring host. To be honest I could never watch his show for more than 5 minutes. Speaking of boring, Larry King needs to retire. His show brings nothing to CNN. While his interviews used to be sharp and crisp, he rarely follows up on anything his guests say and to top it all off, he rarely remembers their name. Then is Anderson Cooper. While an okay host, again he just doesn't add any spice to the mix. His monotone voice and needless stories just aren't what today's audience needs. CNN is like the CBS evening news, obviously catering to the older, traditional crowd.
-Headline Prime: Well there are really only two opinion shows on Headline Prime. Glen Beck is a bumbling right-wing idiot who sucks up to the base of his party like no one else's business. I'm surprised he hasn't been offered a contract by Faux Noise. His fear tactics are right in line with those of the GOP, in fact, a few months ago he and his guests talked about this current Iraq/Iran conflict causing the end of the world if we aren't careful. Than there's Nancy "Good Night Friend" Grace. What can I say about her? Comedy, pure comedy. Good for a laugh. Especially her frequent guest Susan "I rhyme everything I say" Moss. I would assume these two shows appeal to crazies.
-Speaking of crazy, we have Faux Noise. To be honest its kind of hard for me to review them based on opinions, because there is no opinion with them. Its "I'm right, you're wrong". Its right-wing bias taken to the extreme. And the kind of Faux Noise...the "Worst Person in the World" himself, Bill O. I really don't know how people watch this and make this the #1 "news" channel.
-Then there is the fastest growing news channel, MSNBC, my personal favorite. It has opinion shows, yet has diverse opinions. Tucker Carlson provides the conservative view. Chris Matthews provides the moderate view, and Keith Olberman gives his liberal opinions. Its a good mix and not to mention there is even further diversified opinions within the shows. Tucker usually features one republican and one democrat on the panel. Hardball with Chris Matthews has the daily Hardball Debate between a democrat and republican, similar to the crossfire days, and Countdown with Keith Olberman usually has all moderate guests, some leaning right, others leaning left. And then we have Dan Abrams, the male Nancy Grace. Easily MSNBC's worst show, they should give Allison Stewart or David Shuster their own show in that slot.
So the verdict:
1) MSNBC for its diverse opinions and sharp, energetic, and passionate commentators.
2) CNN by default. Not as bad as the following two, and if you like more calm, traditional shows, then CNN is for you.
3) Headline Prime's Glen Beck is enough to make this network go sour quickly, add in Nancy Grace and you have a network
thats would finish last on this countdown if I didn't have to rank Faux Noise.
4) Faux Noise, the reason should be clear.
The Biden Auditions---our next Secretary of State?
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is one of the most experienced men running for the presidency. Yet just like Richardson and Dodd, his years of experience has not yet helped in the polls. Yet unlike Dodd and Richardson, the Delaware Senator for 34 years is a great performer in the debates. He has that forcefulness and passion that Dodd and especially Richardson lack. Yet have you noticed what I've seen?
Joe Biden is auditioning to Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, much like he did in the 2004 election. Why do I say that? Well in the first debate Biden backed Hillary Clinton, saying that the Republicans are sadly mistaken if they believe she would be easy to defeat. He has said kind words about Senator Clinton in every single interview I've seen him give. And he loves to tout the fact that he is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But in fact, I must say, whether Biden auditioned are not, he has to be at the top of any and every democrat's list for Secretary of State. That position is becoming increasingly important with the conflicts in the Middle East. Joe Biden has great knowledge of foreign relations and his forcefull and "say it as it is" attitude is exactly what America needs right now.
Who else would I consider for the job? Not Obama thats for sure....but anyway:
-I truly like Barbara Boxer. I've heard her speak several times, and every time she speaks she demonstrates her foreign relations experience. She is the chairwoman on the Senate Foreign relations sub-committee for Asian affairs as well as being member on the sub-committee for terrorism and the Peace Corps. She too has been a long time Senator for 14 years now.
-Bill Richardson has a mighty impressive resume. What qualifies him most for Secretary of State is the fact that he was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Not to mention he has successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Kim Jong-il for the release of American prisoners. He was also involved in foreign relations while in Congress for 14 years.
Joe Biden is auditioning to Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, much like he did in the 2004 election. Why do I say that? Well in the first debate Biden backed Hillary Clinton, saying that the Republicans are sadly mistaken if they believe she would be easy to defeat. He has said kind words about Senator Clinton in every single interview I've seen him give. And he loves to tout the fact that he is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But in fact, I must say, whether Biden auditioned are not, he has to be at the top of any and every democrat's list for Secretary of State. That position is becoming increasingly important with the conflicts in the Middle East. Joe Biden has great knowledge of foreign relations and his forcefull and "say it as it is" attitude is exactly what America needs right now.
Who else would I consider for the job? Not Obama thats for sure....but anyway:
-I truly like Barbara Boxer. I've heard her speak several times, and every time she speaks she demonstrates her foreign relations experience. She is the chairwoman on the Senate Foreign relations sub-committee for Asian affairs as well as being member on the sub-committee for terrorism and the Peace Corps. She too has been a long time Senator for 14 years now.
-Bill Richardson has a mighty impressive resume. What qualifies him most for Secretary of State is the fact that he was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Not to mention he has successfully negotiated with Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Kim Jong-il for the release of American prisoners. He was also involved in foreign relations while in Congress for 14 years.
I am woman....hear me roar!(or not)
Hillary Clinton is the first woman to have an actual shot at winning the United States Presidency. Many thought she would be running as the ultimate feminist, courting the woman vote. However, that has not been the case at all. She is proving to be popular with a woman, while still appearing to men. I think she summed it up best when she said, "I'm running as a woman, but not because I am a woman." But why is the question being asked, "Is Hillary feminine enough?" The question itself is up to interpretation, what is feminine? Can't someone who is a strong, intelligent, and ambitious still be feminine. The question is actually degrading to women. Its somehow telling women they can't be strong, that they can't be outspoken, that they always have to play the quiet, ditsy blonde. I might not be a woman, but I would have to assume a mother would want her daughter to be Hillary Clinton-like, that is a strong, powerful woman. Its not like Hillary is hiding the fact that she's a woman. The best sound-bite coming out of the 8/7 AFL-CIO forum was Hillary saying, "If you want someone to take on the right-wing machine.....I'm your girl." And indeed if democrats want someone who has experience dealing with the slime slinging right wing machine, she is their girl. No one in the history of politics has had to take so much crap from the "holy-then-thou" base of the Republican Party than Hillary an Bill Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)